| name | competitive-analyzer |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| description | Structured competitive teardown for product discovery - surface the 4-6 dimensions buyers actually weigh, score every competitor on each, and identify exploitable gaps. Use when: competitive analysis, competitor teardown, market positioning, where do we win, where do we lose, competitive gap analysis, competitor audit. |
| when_to_use | Building a defensible competitive POV that will change a decision, not a 40-row feature grid. |
| inputs | ["List of 3-8 competitors","Buyer interview notes (optional)","Product category and target segment"] |
| outputs | ["4-6 buyer-weighted dimensions with scoring rubric","Competitor scoring matrix","Gap map and risk map","Recommended competitive POV"] |
| tags | ["discovery","competitive","positioning","strategy"] |
| maintainer | varunk130 |
Competitive Analyzer
Run a disciplined competitive teardown that goes beyond a feature checklist. The output is the smallest set of decision-relevant dimensions, scored objectively across competitors, with explicit gaps you can attack and risks you should defend.
Core Principle
A competitive analysis is only useful if it changes a decision. Most teardowns produce 40-row feature grids that no one reads. This skill forces brutal selection: pick the 4-6 dimensions buyers actually weigh, score them with a defensible rubric, and surface the 2-3 moves the analysis implies.
Output
Save to outputs/competitive-analysis-[market]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
| Artifact | Description |
|---|
| Dimension Map | The 4-6 buyer-weighted dimensions with rationale for inclusion |
| Scoring Matrix | Each competitor scored 1-5 on each dimension, with one-line evidence per cell |
| Gap Map | Dimensions where every competitor underperforms - the white space |
| Risk Map | Dimensions where one competitor strongly outperforms us |
| Implied Moves | 2-3 concrete strategic moves the analysis suggests, ranked by leverage |
Process
Step 1: Frame the Market
I'll ask:
"What market are we analyzing, and from whose perspective? List the competitors (3-7 works best). What's the deal context - what's a typical buyer trying to accomplish?"
Step 2: Pick the Dimensions
Generate a candidate list of 12-15 dimensions, then ruthlessly cut to 4-6 by applying two filters:
- Decision relevance - does this dimension actually move buying decisions?
- Discriminating power - do competitors meaningfully differ on it? (Dimensions where everyone scores the same get cut.)
Step 3: Score with Evidence
For each (competitor × dimension) cell, score 1-5 with a single sentence of evidence - a public artifact, a customer quote, a product behavior - not opinion.
Step 4: Identify Gaps and Risks
Two scans across the matrix:
- Gap - any dimension where the highest score is ≤3 → market is underserved, opportunity
- Risk - any dimension where a competitor scores 5 and we score ≤3 → defensive priority
Step 5: Implied Moves
Translate the gap and risk maps into 2-3 concrete moves: build, partner, position, retreat. Each move includes the evidence from the matrix that justifies it.
Tips
- Evidence-only scoring. A score without evidence is opinion; opinions don't survive the next leadership review.
- Cut the matrix until it hurts. A 4-dimension matrix that gets used beats a 12-dimension matrix that gets ignored.
- Re-run quarterly. Competitive position shifts; rerun cadence keeps the analysis honest.
